Aw I love Hugo. And Labor Day is May 1 in the rest of the world. I'm not sure why we moved it. Maybe becasue during the Cold War we didn't want to celebrate the same day as the Muskovites were partying? Oh, and I watched the news, and saw some good labor-day demonstrations! GodlessLiberal 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Did we sink low enough as to insinuate Labour Day is evil and communist?

Don't forget it all started in the U.S. in 1886 when workers were protesting for an 8 hour workday (from a 12 hour workday), then, millions of workers around the world joined in to support their American colleagues.
This seems perfectly reasonable to me and the outcome greatly benefited (they're not starving anymore) the majority of the population of the industrialized world, how can that be evil?

Another thing, does anyone remember Castro's predecessor was an American backed military dictator (who never held elections either) who had strong ties with the Mafia?

If America was really this concerned about the Cuban people it would have helped the Cubans rise up against this General Batista, so there would have been no need for Castro's revolution.

Cuba was nothing more than a pawn on the chessboard of the Cold War, we know that now, so let us not cite hypocrites form the 1960's!

His post reminded me of this quote by MLK: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. " --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 09:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

May 1 IS Labour Day, in pretty much all countries, for some reason the U.S. decided to move it to September, but it still draws on the same events in 1886, it is in fact the same holiday May 1 is in other countries.
Of course it was also celebrated by communists but it is not communist in origin.

Well, there is a difference between both Labor Days besides dates, and the point made here about the version in a communist country is the fact the average worker has limited to no freedom at all. So don't go around defending Cuba for it's own practices here. Karajou 09:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying Castro is ok, I'm just saying only a hypocrite could forget the rule of American backed dictator Batista: did any American politicians ever care for the freedom of the Cubans under Batista's rule?

But do you agree with me that there is nothing wrong with celebrating Labour Day in the free West?

American backing or not, Batista was responsible for himself and what he did to the people of Cuba. Castro is equally responsible for himself as well. Nobody on this website is going to give positive reviews to such individuals. Karajou 10:09, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

In Australia, the trade unions have some sort of celebrations on May 1st, but in Victoria, Labour Day is the second Monday in March. It varies in other states, though, I believe. Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

What gets me is that since last night we had requests from a communist here that we put up some recognition of May 1 as the workers holiday. If this request was made by someone not a communist, then I would put it up with just that simple, "workers holiday" statement, and leave it at that. But I had seen up close and personal what communism has done to people. It's nothing more than a gigantic prison system; anyone who complains about their government failing its people are jailed. The individual who wanted freedom in China as that Time magazine photo indicates has vanished; according to scant reports he was either imprisoned for life or shot. All for wanting freedom. That is why anyone defending communism here will never get an even break from me. Karajou 10:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately the countries you are refering to use a bastardized version of Communism. In its purest form where everyone is equal (granted this probably only can happen on paper) it would be a great society. Jrssr5 10:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong, Karajou, I'm not a communist, but as I pointed out May 1 is not communist in origin: people died to give you your 8 hour workday, your minimum wage, your union and your yearly legal holidays: people died to make sure today's first-world workers don't have to live like their colleagues in the slums of India: May 1 doesn't deserve to be slandered by people who think it's nothing more than a communist instrument.

Did any of the above people die to give you your freedom? I will slander May 1 only as it is used by a communist system; how many of the workers you cited above who have endured living in such a system enjoyed their 8-hour workdays, or their unions; or their paid yearly holidays? Karajou 10:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd say he got freedom from working 12 hour days, poor working conditions, no holidays, no minimum wage, and no unions. Jrssr5 10:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

The worker in a communist system got his freedom from the forced revolution that happened in Eastern Europe at the end of 1989...and you know it. Karajou 10:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they did give us freedom, through labour unions, they gave us the freedom to rise up against the whims of merciless, greedy CEO's.
They also expanded the ideals of freedom and equality to include those who were not born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths.
Thanks to them freedom is no longer merely a concept for the rich (the white, male landowners over 21 the first constitution talked about), thanks to them, the difference between living in a free or an authoritarian nation finally became noticeable to the common man.

Communist nations kidnapped other people's ideas, twisted them and used them for propaganda, just like the fascists kidnapped a holy symbol (the swastika) of the peaceful Buddhist religion to use it for propaganda.

Then we are agreed that communism is among the worst things that can happen to a people, and the ways and means of supporting it should not be tolerated, as such a system has no tolerance for the common man. Karajou 11:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that communism cannot be maintained, in practice, without resorting to gulags and limiting freedom, because humans simply can't live under such a system.
A greedy, highly competitive capitalistic system is much more consistent with human nature, but that may have something to do with the flaws in human nature.

Still I believe capitalism has to be merged with socialist (not communist) values such as workers rights and equality for all, in order to become anywhere near a fair system.

That's because I believe country A with a GNP of 400 billion, with 390 billion divided among 39 billionaires and 10 billion among millions of common people, is worse off than country B with a GNP of 300 billion, with 2 billion divided among millionaires and the rest among millions of common people.
Strictly speaking, a capitalist would say that if countries A and B had equally large populations, country A has a stronger economy, a socialist would say country B has a healthier economy.
Remember, humans invented money to make life easier and improve their quality of living, not to become slaves to it.

That's also called class envy. If I decide to make money by doing anything, and I end up a billionaire for it, nobody has the right to take what I earned and distribute it as they see fit. The other word for it is stealing. Karajou 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

So you think it's okay to steal? I've seen people steal from a store I once worked in, and claimed it's okay because they stole from the rich people who owned it; they couldn't care less that their so-called "compassion" affected the jobs of the workers on the floor. So, I don't want to hear any more of that garbage here, understand, Wikiinterpreter? Karajou 12:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No, what I said had nothing to do with stealing, with workers rights and equality for all, I meant that if you want to become a billionaire you'll have to play by some well established rules: rules that prohibit you from using slavery, serfdom, violence, etc... as means to become a billionaire.
How are you supposed to become a billionaire starting from a position in which you have no rights, anyway? A position in which hard work doesn't get you a promotion, but only allows you to (barely) survive, because that's the position workers were in before 1886.

Again I see socialism gets confused with communism, by using the word "socialism" I referred to a free-market system which is a bit more fair than pure capitalism because it makes sure that someone who works his ass off 8 hours a day can provide for a family, or start his own business (minimum wage), he can take his children to a doctor (affordable health care), he can send his children to school or even to college so they'll have a better starting position (affordable education) and he can't get fired because his boss happens to be in a bad mood today (unions/workers rights).

Going back to my example of countries A (a la India) and B (first-world country): country B is obviously a better place to live, even though it may not live up to the capitalist ideal completely, but does that really matter if the people of country B are happier than their neighbours in country A?

Ooh, garbage. I wasn't referring to the stealing, saying that I am in favour of it is a straw man; and this is a talk page, so I can post my opinion. I was referring to income redistribution I would say that the elected government has a perfect right to take a share of your money, and redistribute it among the poorest in society. Say you, the above mentioned billionaire, are a member of country X. You pay 20% tax rate in your bracket. On the other side of country X, some natural disaster happens, displacing those who live in a shanty town. The government can't currently afford to set them up in temporary housing, etc. They raise the income tax in your (among others') bracket by 5% to pay for it. Is that stealing? Is that compassionate? --Wikinterpretertalk?

Yes it is stealing, and no it's not compassionate. There's a difference between freely giving and taking by force. I'd rather give freely to those who need it, rather than what someone else thinks he should do with it after he picks my wallet. Karajou 12:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Would you know how to deal with these things? Could we trust individuals to give to the right causes? --Wikinterpretertalk?

In the U.S., the only way someone like Bill Gates or Sam Walton can become a multi-billionaire is by creating a successful business. No business can be successful unless it adds value (note that European countries have a "value added" tax). Consumers recognize this value by paying the company - instead of another company, or doing it themselves. I could grow all my own food, but I'd rather pay the lockl grocer to bring it to the neighborhood, for me to pick up. I'm glad to give him a profit.

The grocer's employees would rather work for him than do anything else - otherwise they would do it. Maybe they like stocking shelves and running a cash register, or maybe they just didn't feel like finishing school. Or maybe it's an entry-level job and they'll take advantage of America's upward mobility and get a better job later on.

If wealthy people want to express their compassion by giving charity, that's nice. They already have to give 20% to 50% of their income to taxes. The problem with socialism is that it confiscates (by using force), rather than letting people express their own voluntary compassion. The other problem with socialism is that no one has ever been able to make a planned economy as efficient as the free market system.

The top income tax rate in the US is 39.6%, not 50%. And people in that bracket pay a very small percentage of their total income in FICE. Just FIY. Human 15:09, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

The definition of insanity is to keep trying something that doesn't work. --Ed Poor 12:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that over history, tax and welfare have worked quite well. --Wikinterpretertalk?

The United States, as a government, doesn't give to the World much in relation to its economic wealth. However, the people here give more, every year, voluntarily, than the EU or any group of countries combined. THE PEOPLE give more, year after year, to more of their fellow humans, than any other people on Earth. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 14:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

But 'THE PEOPLE' don't necessarily give fairly. Some friends of mine who worked for charities just after the Boxing Day Tsunami complained that while they received truly staggering levels of contribution for South East Asia, the money given to African countries nearly dried up. People are easily swayed. --Wikinterpretertalk?

So what! You're talking about the United States here. We've been feeding pretty much the entire world for years, and you still complain of lack of fairness on our part? We rebuilt Europe and Japan after a massive and savage war, and the countries we helped to get on their feet were our enemies before. We're the first to send aid when disater strikes. And you complain of lack of fairness on our part? I would say millions for those who need it, but not one thin dime for those who demand it. Karajou 14:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

That point was directed at Ed Poor. Oh, and wasn't it the central government's aid that rebuilt Europe? --Wikinterpretertalk?

Hugo Chavez image

You make your point forcefully, yet I would say that in doing so you step outside the bounds of common decency. remember Conservatism is not only about combating liberals and Communists, but requires us to be better than them. I advise you to delete before you get into trouble.

I agree. I don't want my son to think this behaviour is appropriate.--Olly 19:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of the psychological cost, this will have done untold damage to the CP project.

This image is far worse than the Jack McConnel image that is the subject of so much controversy on Scotland yet here it is on the main page. Trashbat 19:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Pollox, you uploaded it, and I'm banning you for life. If I find out anybody else was involved in this, they too will be banned for life, and further legal repercussions may apply. DanH 19:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

May I suggest that only protected images be used on the main page. There seems to be a lot of image replacement vandalism recently and this can only detract from what little reputation this site has on the world wide web. Trashbat 19:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Am I the only one who is totally confused as to what is wrong with this picture?--Elamdri 23:56, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Chávez was elected President in 1998, and was reelected in 2000 and in 2006.
He may well be an autocratic leftistnutjob but he has not reached dictator status yet.
I suggest the comment Venezuelan dictator be toned down in order stop Conservapedia appearing somewhat over zealous and unnecessarily silly. Auld Nick 04:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Scottish elections

As tomorrow (May 3rd) sees the third elections for the Scottish Parliament, could we have a front page photo of Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell celebrating his Scottishness - perhaps by wearing some item of national dress? Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swordofdestiny(talk)

Miss America

Thank God Conservapedia has clarified its position on pedophilia. --Hektor 18:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Happy to hear you're not all broken up about it. Karajou 00:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

New York Times

I work on a college campus. They can't give the NYT away. NYT & USA Today are available free on the newsstand, and nobody takes them. In five years, they'll go the way of the 8 track tape. RobS 01:19, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Newspapers are dinosaurs. The USA Today survives by selling sports. The NYT won't survive, and its influence declines daily.

What will replace it as informational sources? Wikis like Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 01:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Its actually rather sad to see the NYT go, It is so hard to find a decent source for international news in hard copy, and the NYT fills that void for me.--Elamdri 02:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

In reality, all newspapers are declining: [2]Sterile 09:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I saw this entry on the talk page shortly before I registered. I have to ask, RobS, what college you work at? Because the college I went to, the New York Times & Wall Street Journal were all gone by 11:00 AM, because students were eager to read them at breakfast, or for an early lunch. Perhaps the students at my college were just more interested in world affairs.-BillBuck 10:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

They don't need last nights news, they can get it in real time on the internet. And it goes without saying, the editorial page is only good for lining the bottom of bird cages. RobS 11:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I mean, sure, that's your preference, but it's not binding upon the rest of us, and it's kind of un-encyclopedic to take a stance on it. The NYT & WSJ are much better written than anything online, or any blogs. I'm more of a WSJ fan myself, but they're both much more in-depth than anything you'd get on the 'ol interconnected series of tubes. And if you care about music (my girlfriend's an opera singer), you'll care about the NYT's unrivaled A&E section for the latest spotlight on Renee Fleming, or Bryn Terfel, et al. In short, the internet will solve any quick & burning question you have, but if you're at all intellectually curious, you'll probably want a newspaper (or the Economist - good stuff).-BillBuck 11:21, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Interesting comments on the NY Times. I was forwarded a right-wing rant yesterday by a colleague that compared buying a copy of that paper with supporting terrorists. I asked him the last time he read a copy of the Times. "Never" was his response. I guess he "just knows" about it the way Bush "just knew" we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq. Anyway, you should the read the referenced article about race in the NBA. It is fairly long and quite interesting. While I realize post-Reagan conservatives just prefer to hear or read sound-bites, but the more inquisitive of you should give it a read.--Trajsmith 13:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, watch it with the post-Reagan conservatives stuff. I'm conservative & don't agree with a lot of what Bush does, so don't pin all conservatives with him :-) . Yeah, you can be a fan of the Times without being a liberal. I think that fact that people at RobS' college don't read it says more about the college than the paper. Genuine intellectuals should feel free to view sources that might disagree with them :-P.-BillBuck 13:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. Fact and logic are unarguable. Interpretation is another issue, but either way it's an intellectual dead end to never even read views unlike your own and formulate your own arguments against them.--Britinme 13:30, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I don’t get why the story is “absurd” (or “liberal” but I’m not interested in debating that). The article that the story is about was taken seriously enough that the NBA responded, and even ran their own counter-study. I’m not a big sports-fan, but I don’t gather than commissioning a statistical analysis of foul calling is something the NBA does all that often, seems like news to me (in so far as anything the NBA does is news).--Reginod 13:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Remember, Andy has a particular notion of "silly" things and their inappropriateness in serious discourse. IANA, but I suspect he's thinking along these lines. Otherwise, he maybe intuits that the conclusions are absurd. I'd be curious what his opinion of the book Freakanomics is, apart from the sometimes-inflammatory abortion section. Aziraphale 15:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The thing to remember is that if hard copy newspapers go the way of the dinosaur, we're gonna see even more subscription based news sites on the net, and that will really suck.--Elamdri 16:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Pretty remarkable defenses of the NY Times above. Readers are dropping it like flies, as shown by the links on the front page. Yet liberals here deny that! I don't know any young conservatives who read the paper, and the only conservatives who still read it do so out of force of habit. Show me a group of college students that like the paper, and I'll show you a group of liberal students.

As to the story about alleged racism by refs in the NBA, I wouldn't expect even liberals to anything but roll their eyes at that. Really, is that an allegation of national significance???? Hey, maybe we can get the Democratic presidential candidates to address it at their next debate!!!--Aschlafly 17:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

As I said, I’m not much of a sports-fan myself, but if I found out that the outcome of a sporting event I cared about was changed as a result of racism on the part of the refs, yeah, I’d care and I’d want to know about it. Since, judging by record breaking attendance numbers [3] lots of people do care about the NBA, I suspect that, yes, they would want to know. And since it is a story about something that appears to be important to lots of people all over the nation, it seems to me that it belongs in a national news paper.

Is it more important than the War in Iraq or even the French Presidential elections that are coming up? Not to me, but it is interesting enough that it doesn’t strike me as absurd that the NYT would print an article on it.--Reginod 18:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, Aschlafly, we meet again. As I said above, I'm a young conservative (but not your kind of conservative :-P) and I read the Times. It's well-written, informative, and honestly, I think the people that bash it are more setting up a straw man than anything. Everyone at my university reads it; my conservative friends, and my liberal friends. To be honest, though, we don't differentiate based on politics much: they're just my friends, regardless. The Science Times, accessible online, is pretty comprehensive & useful, the opera coverage superb, the politics comprehensive, the opinion page biased but a good mental test, and that's not to mention the crosswords.-BillBuck 19:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Bill, when someone makes a claim that he's such-and-such (e.g., conservative) in order to make a point, the claim is dubious. I'll bet you oppose prayer in public school classrooms. I bet you're "pro-choice". I bet you support mandatory evolution instruction in schools, and censoring alternative viewpoints. I bet you support gay unions. I bet you support public school. I bet you support some gun control.

Aschlafly, my viewpoints are none of your business, and how dare you impugn my political alignment! I support public school & evolution (it's science, not politics) because I believe in the Constitution (!); I support first-semester choice, but I was thrilled about the SC case a few weeks back (partial birth is scary), mostly because I think Roe is a poorly-written case, and the Supreme Court should stay out of abortion and leave it to the politicians; I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality (I have a bunch of gay friends, who mellowed out my original anti-gay perspective); but I'm anti-tax, pro-Iraq War from the beginning, not a huge fan of welfare, anti-gun control, pro-PATRIOT ACT & wiretapping, and pro-states rights, so I guess you could call me a Reagan conservative, or a Rehnquist conservative, but not a Scalia (or really a Bush) conservative.

But how dare you try to "call me out"! Who do you think you are? There's no "bar" for being conservative - being conservative is about specifically being against those sorts of labels. We're a big tent, like Reagan said. And what happened to no ad-hominem attacks?BillBuck 19:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Bill, spare us the false indignation. You claimed you were a conservative in order to make a liberal point. It's obvious to me that you're not a conservative and it's fair to point that out to rebut your claim.--Aschlafly 19:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not your kind of conservative, that's for sure. But I don't lie to score points. We're done here, and I'm done with you.-BillBuck 19:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

De Tocqueville on Women

I have another quote about women that's along the same lines!

"For us the woman has always been man's most loyal comrade in work and in life. I am often told, "You want to drive women out of the professions. Not at all. I wish only to create the broadest measure of possibility for her to co-found her own family and be able to have children, because by doing so she most benefits our Volk...!"

You're not trying to compare De Tocqueville to Hitler are you? Karajou 15:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I'm comparing his attitude towards women with the Nazi attitude. The Nazis used much the same kind of rhetoric, claiming that narrowing women's sphere to childbearing and housekeeping was actually ELEVATING women. That, of course, is baloney, whether it comes from De Tocqueville or from Hitler. --PF Fox 15:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hess wrote a lot of stuff Hitler used. He was Hitler's ghost writer. RobS 15:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

So what, Rob? Does that mean Hitler didn't embrace those sentiments, even though he claimed them as his own? --PF Fox 17:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hitler like dogs. Does that mean it's wrong to like dogs? Of course not.

Anyway, the point of the quote is not to illustrated De Tocqueville's attitude towards women. In fact, I don't think De Tocqueville was all that conservative in his own views of women. But he recognized women's promarily domestic life in America as its foundation of its well-being. His observation was positive, not normative.--Aschlafly 17:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I find it strange that we're looking to men to tell us how women feel. Here's a crazy idea: let's ask the women. ;)

At any rate, I think we should just let the women choose for themselves what sort of life they want to live. I consider feminists who insist that women should be independant every bit as annoying as those who claim that they should all be housewives. Sureal 20:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, the fact that Hitler liked dogs did not adversely affect the lives of thousands of people. His attitude towards women did, as women found themselves driven from professions and measured, not by their intelligence, skill, or professionalism, but by their ability to bear children and keep a clean house. --PF Fox 12:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

And Surreal, the problem was that women were NOT given a choice in the America deTocqueville described. A woman who wanted something other than motherhood and wifehood was NOT allowed to do so. That's the point. --PF Fox 12:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

How do my above comments qualify as an "attack" on you, Sureal? And please name those feminists who are marching AGAINST stay at home moms, and striving to put the choice of being a housewife and mother out of reach of the average American woman. --PF Fox 13:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

PF Fox, please take Sureal's comment as a sign to lighten up and open the mind a bit. With an open mind you can learn things on this site. If you've ever needed a blood transfusion, or anyone among your family or friends did, that blood likely came from an evangelical Christian. Think about it.--Aschlafly 09:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafley, I'm not the editor removing facts from pieces. And some of that blood is also likely to have come from the many liberals and unbelievers who also give blood-- you know, those folks whom you blanket condemn as liars. Think about it. --PF Fox 13:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Did Tocqueville really confine women to the home, as your quote mining would suggest? I thought he said rather that women have more rights and a wider sphere in America than anywhere else. --Ed Poor 11:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Syrian buildup

Here's one for breaking news. [4] "Faced with the biggest military buildup by Syria along its border since the 1973 Middle East war, Israel is privately reassuring its Arab neighbor that it does not seek a confrontation, Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor said Wednesday." He said this a the National Press Club. I can't find any references to this anywhere else. Of course if it's wrong, Syria doesn't attack and nothing happens, we might look like alarmists. RobS 21:03, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm--that's the message that Olmert sent to Syria via Pelosi...--WJThomas 23:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

They haven't acknowledged diddly; how do we know Syrian intentions have not been caused by the confusion Pelosi created when she interfered in the foreign policy process and relations of the US, Israel, and Syria? RobS 14:50, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The buildup has been going on since before Pelosi's trip, which is why she was (allegedly) asked to pass on a message. See: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/844730.html (And I should note that we're probably taking this discussion further than is appropriate for this page...)--WJThomas 16:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

So Haaretz reports, "Israel's political and military leadership has been preparing in recent weeks for the possibility of a Syrian attack on the Golan Heights that will start as a result of a "miscalculation" on the part of the Syrians, who may assume that Israel intends to attack them."

This supports all the same messages coming out of Olmert's office after the Pelosi flap, "a result of a 'miscalculation'". Pelosi intefered in the midst of a particularly delicate negotiation, something that could spark a miscalcualtion. RobS 17:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

technical: disambiguation

Does CP have a policy on this? Do we call them disambiguation pages like WP does, or is there a local name for them? Is there a category they can be in? (I just created delta to be one, so please help) Human 22:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Imus

Thanks, but I wasn't convinced by the article. Interesting, however.--Aschlafly 07:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Here's another one from Human Events[6] (I don't know if you need the subscription to read it). It's much along the same lines, but does not have the Hillary connection in it. RobS 12:57, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Chimps

The presentation of the News about a chimp seems kinda lame. May I suggest Liberals oppose a legal right to life for unborn children, but demand legal rights for chimps: [7]. That is surely more in keeping with the editorial style of Conservapedia. Auld Nick 06:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Did anyone read the linked article? The problem is a quirk in that country's tax law that won't allow donations to prevent needless cruelty to an animal. And of course, there is the usual implication on the main page that liberals are a monolithic group marching in lockstep to destroy the unborn, God, America, and, one presumes, motherhood. You should take a look inside our tent someday, it is actually quite large--Trajsmith 12:32, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

"Won't allow donations"??? I think you mean "Won't allow tax deductions," for which an obvious reply would be to lobby to allow the tax deductions for animal groups, not to call animals humans. Plainly there more driving the liberals here than an issue of tax treatment.--Aschlafly 13:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Either that or they weren't really trying to censor it. Jrssr5 11:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Google News doesn't find it. After four edits here, do you agree? That's not earth-shattering, but it is curious.--Aschlafly 11:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

A video I cannot recommend highly enough:

Want to really understand Wikipedia, what it is and why it is the way it is? I recommend watching the whole thing through, Jimmy Wales' comments about a hypothetical "Catholic Encyclopedia" are particularly relevant to this project:

Please summarize what you think is so insightful about this. I do understand Wikipedia, but not from listening to Jimmy Wales. Understand Wikipedia by watching how it prefers the for-profit Wikia, by how it drives away the smarter editors and administrators, by how it allows bullying and mobocracy, by how it features porn, and by how it is dependent on search engines for 70% of its traffic (i.e., only minority of Wikipedia users go there looking for info). I predict that in a mere 12 months Wikipedia will not even look like it does today.--Aschlafly 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Did i say you don't understand Wikipedia Mr.Schlafly? No. But in the lecture Jimmy Wales talks allot about Wikipedia's governance and regulation, what about it is democratic and what about it isn't, what ideals are upheld, what ideals aren't, and the infamous NPOV principle. Since allot of debate here concerns how Wikipedia functions, it really is a must-watch. Orgone 15:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it should, its a bad habit but i always make that mistake! :-) Orgone 15:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, I'm begging you to tell me what you think is illuminating about the video. Anything. Look, Wikipedia is a crass traffic builder for a for-profit project. We weren't born yesterday. Tell me this: did Jimmy Wales mention on the video how the Wikipedia traffic can attract investments for his for-profit project??? Did Jimmy Wales talk about the porn on Wikipedia that attracts traffic, presumably by teenagers or younger???--Aschlafly 15:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, apart from offering up some kind of full transcript of the video i don't know what you want from me further than what you've got so far. Needless to say if you'd spent the time you used telling me your views on Wikipedia (that i was already fully aware of) actually just watching the video, then your curiosity would be satisfied already. The video does talk about traffic to Wikipedia, but does not contain any responses to your specific criticisms (it being filmed in 1995), but it is an interesting lecture nonetheless.Orgone 15:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ames, no one gets special treatment on Conservapedia, not even M.D.s who talk outside their area of expertise.--Aschlafly 15:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I've placed this lecture link in the wrong place, it should probably be in "Talk - Examples of bias in Wikipedia" or similar debate page. The video has no specific discussion of what your talking about AmesG. Orgone 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, Daniel Brandt is hardly a reliable source to be getting your information from. He's even more biased than you! --Hojimachongtalk 15:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems that lawyers talking outside their area of expertise, though, is fine. Am I right?-AmesGyo! 15:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

In my experience with Wikipedia, I was nearly bullied by an individual who wanted to be politally-correct about the name of a ship, and this member was on the Wikipedia historical board. I went back through history and pulled documentation that proved how wrong he was, and the only thing he could do was call me a troll for it. So yes, Wikipedia is full of those people. Karajou 15:49, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, I'll slogging through this video you referenced. I very much appreciate links like that and want to encourage everyone to post more. That said, I've seen nothing that sheds any light into the real problems with Wikipedia or its future. In fact, Jimmy Wales's failure to address anything meaningful in this talk only serves to alarm me further. Does he ever acknowledge the harm caused by Wikipedia, for example, as in the Seignenthaler (sp?) incident? The porn? The gossip? No, he seems to love the traffic, and it's clear so far that is what the goal is. Porn and gossip do bring greater traffic, especially by teenagers, and it's only a matter of time before someone tries to profit from it. Enter Wikia.--Aschlafly 16:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia, IMO, panders to the worst in people, that so-called bullying and mobocracy, to get the production done. It is the creation of nothing more than a few aging "Hippies" and their good idea of communal living, translated to the Web. Along they way, they discovered revenue streams, and prostitute themselves and the work-product of others, to enrich themselves, all the while shrouding it in secrecy from their core supporters at WP. This isn't a new story, or a particular unique one, but merely one of greed. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 17:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

TK's comments are similar to some of my experiences.

OK, I've watched more of the Jimmy Wales video now, a bit painfully. Deletions of articles are done based on a weighted majority vote (weighted by the views of bigger contributors). So this exacerbates Wikipedia's liberal bias, and certainly confirms that the bias there does matter.

I also learned that only 525 Wikipedia editors contributed over 50% of the content at the time of the video. I learned that a big Wikipedian contributor named Rick Kaye (sp?) left the project. I have no reason to think politics was the cause, but I do see a brain drain that is a problem in the long term. But, of course, no one cares about quality when the goal is to build traffic for a for-project venture. Indeed, lower quality (e.g., National Enquirer stuff) may actually help build traffic!--Aschlafly 17:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

French Election

I think the "intolerant liberals" part is a little extreme. To quote the sourced article: "Police were anticipating that youth gangs from the suburbs and extreme-left agitators would attempt to disrupt the victory parties for a head of state who wants to establish a French department of "Immigration and National Identity".

It's hardly fair to use "liberal" as a catch-all phrase when talking about radical left-wing rioters, any more than it would be fair to call reactionary right-wing rioters "conservatives." More importantly, it looks very juvenille and beneath the standards this project is supposed to represent. And I am saying this as someone who is thrilled that Sarkozy won the election. --Dave3172 17:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Agreeing with Dave here, and I raise him an "The beauty of conservatism has defeated the beast of socialism!!!" I can understand people are excited about the result of this election, but this statement isn't even juvenile, it's plain out stupid. The credibility of this site takes a huge hit when something like this is put on the front page.
Besides, we'll see how well the 'beast of socialism' fares against the 'Conservative Expeditionary Forces' in the French parliamentary elections, which aren't too far off. The French, after all, have this habit of forcing something called 'cohabitation' on their political leaders. Arctic Nation 12:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

"beast"!? Someone trying to vandalize this main page to be totally parodic from european view?! --Aulis Eskola 19:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I stopped to think about these hate massages, why are they allowed here on main page? Conservatism (Sargozy) defeated the beast of socialism (Royal). Does this try to be a joke? - not a good one. Are all people with different political opinions beasts? Are European beasts if they don't think like some Americans do? Why is this kind aggressive language allowed here if this site somehow tries to be even Christian!? Why are this kind of hate messages on _encyclopedia_ main page!? --Aulis Eskola 09:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Paris riot

Sorry, I can't resist laughing, trying to imagine your classic american liberals: Clintons, Obama, "liberal media" etc., furiously rioting in Paris, after reading that "Paris is on riot alert as intolerant liberals are furious that a conservative won". It must be that, as an ignorant european, I associate the word 'liberal' to american democrats or conservative british, not rioting french.
And this is just funny for me, don't take it as a comment on that phrase.Leopeo 18:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, I hear the comments above about the use of the word "liberal". I didn't think it was perfect when I used it. But do you have a better substitute? You didn't suggest one. Thanks for your input and God bless.--Aschlafly 20:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I think "left-wing radicals" is a more accurate description. Thanks for listening. --Dave3172 22:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Good improvement. Thanks for your insight. I've made the change on the front page. God bless.--Aschlafly 23:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Not to seem indignant, but the fact that the FRENCH are rioting....really isn't newsworthy. Thats like reporting that the 700 club pushed a religious point during the show. Its a given.--Elamdri 08:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The main problem in France is control of immigration, not general left-right-wing situation. --Aulis Eskola 19:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So the horrible, stagnant economy is due to immigration, not the left-wing socialistic policies of the past 12 years or so? --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 20:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

We talked about resistance against person of Sarkazy, not mainly economy. Economy is of cource also "his business" but French riots are mainly connected to immigration. --Aulis Eskola 20:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Those who favor democracy only riot when the government sabotages free elections, e.g., with voter fraud or by restrictions on campaigning.

Those who favor socialism riot (or threaten violence) when the voters don't want them! IIRC, Spain had an election a couple years ago influenced by a terrorist act. --Ed Poor 21:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Gee Ed, if "those who favor democracy only riot when the government sabotages free elections," it's certainly odd that the several thousand legal voters in Florida who were denied the right to vote during the 2000 election didn't riot. How do you account for that? --PF Fox 22:09, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

If you're referring to the voters in the Western panhandle of Florida, who were tricked by the media "calling Florida for Gore", I don't know. Maybe pro-democracy people are just naturally peace-living folks. --Ed Poor 22:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No, Ed. I'm talking about legal American voters who went to vote and were told they couldn't, accused wrongly of being convicted felons, and were not allowed to cast a ballot. You didn't hear about this? --PF Fox 23:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

They were voters like me, who was stationed in Florida at the time, and where the Democratic lawyers tried to get a judge to throw out all of our votes...simply because the votes were military absentee ballots, and the military is overwhelmingly conservative. Karajou 22:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It wasn't because they were "military absentee ballots," Karajou. It was because they were not postmarked correctly, and Florida law stated that such ballots were not valid. --PF Fox 23:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Daily Bible Verse

We have had the same one for some time. Can we skip ahead just a bit to II Kings 2 where God sends two "she-bears" to kill 42 children for making fun of Elijah's bald head? This was my favorite bible story as a kid.--Trajsmith 13:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

If you are interested in understanding instead of finding fault, have a read of this. Philip J. Rayment 22:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, OK. I thought we were supposed to take the Book literally, so I read it as God having 42 kids killed for making fun of a bald head. What other allegories am I missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trajsmith(talk)

"Oh, OK. I thought we were supposed to take the Book literally...". Then you thought wrong. The Bible includes history, poetry, parable, metaphor, hyperbole, humour, teaching, etc. You are meant to take it the way it was meant by its authors to be understood, which is to take the history as history, the metaphor as metaphor, etc. etc. Philip J. Rayment 05:30, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm at a loss to see where this passage is described as an allegory in the book. How can you be sure it's meant to be interprated thusly? Nematocyte 07:17, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure you're speaking the truth, or are you just trolling around? Karajou 22:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So if I come on here and speak irresponsibly about liberals rioting in Paris, that's okay. If I come on here and make a stupid little joke that you don't agree with, I'm a troll. What gives? --Jaygfrancis 22:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

That's just it. You came in here and made a stupid little joke. Karajou 22:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Thompson Breaking News

Breaking News sez, re Fred Thompson, "a liberal columnist is hinting he's a racist because he played one on TV!" While not knowing myself the political leanings of the columnist, it's clear that neither he nor anyone else is claiming Thompson is a racist. What the article does say is that Thompson once played a racist, and some conservative bloggers are worried that a clip from that part could be spliced up and used as a partisan smear in the future (no evidence yet that this thought has occurred to any libs). The "news" headline is darned (dare I say?) deceitful...--WJThomas 23:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

We've come to accept this sort of thing; I recall Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman was shocked Ronald Reagan would be our next President in 1980 after his daughter, Patty Davis, lived with a member of the rock group Eagles. Of course 15 years later (forget the guilt by association smear) Goodman couldn't repeat often enough, what a person does in their private life is nobodies business. RobS 00:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Patterico agrees: But a lot of commenters and bloggers reacted to her article as though she was calling Thompson a racist. That’s not a fair reading of her article. --Jtl 00:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups. --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 00:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Egregious use of the innocent exclamation mark

Since this site endevours to be a serious encyclopedia, perhaps the rather excessive use of exclamation marks in the "breaking news" should be toned down. Personally I begin to doubt to intelligence of a writer if they use more than two of the character within a thousand words of each other, so you can imagine my opinion of the use of triple explamation marks, as explemlified by the breaking news on the French election. Really, it just makes the place look unprofessional. Nematocyte 07:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, well forgive us, but we are used to the veiled insults and your POV, Nematocyte. I just don't think anything here can be pleasing to you, but we are trying!! --Sysop-TK/MyTalk 07:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It's no skin off my nose if you keep writing badly, and I don't see any need for such hostility. Nematocyte 07:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

That's right, Nematocyte, and you're not going to start up the hostility at all. Karajou 11:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow, "veiled insults" are treated with blatant hostility ... good to see #2 of Conservapedia:Teamwork being followed. Jrssr5 12:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I've never liked Aschlafly's (I think it's just his) habit of the multiple exclamation marks, but there are much worse habits and things people do on this site, so we should be tolerant. Quite a bit of the content, for a start. --Wikinterpretertalk?

Please, fix also used language to be more proper for encyclopedia. (Talked earlier for example in "French Election") --Aulis Eskola 13:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Homeschooling is Illegal in Germany?

I really don't agree with the principle of homeschooling (Sorry Andrew...) but making it illegal to me seems rather ridiculous.--Elamdri 01:11, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Compulsory school attendance is common or at least the usual case in most developed countries. Historically, it relates strongly to the industrial revolution, abolishment of illiteracy and the development of a modern society and state. Also today, there are good reasons for this in Germany, since despite all deficits in detail, in general the education provided is the basis for the society, for finding a job, just about everything. In addition, it is a major factor for the integration of immigrants. Actually, most conflicts between schools a parents are around whether muslimic girls are allowed to participate in swimming lessons, excursions and so on. Furthermore, you need some rules and an institutional setup for home schooling, which makes sure that the children receive an appropriate eduation. Discussions about this have started in Germany, but it is far from ready or established, yet, which takes long time since education is not federal, but topic of the individual states (Bundesländer), who never agree on anything. The background is that you simply do not want parents prevent a regular education of daugthers, for example. Furthermore, several details of this case are left out in the news cited, which severely bias the report. The two most important are:

1) The parents are not favoring hoom schooling or object public schools in general. All of their other children go to public schools and there is no problem with that.
2) The girl had major problems at school being higly intelligent at the same time. This actually indicates that there might be a severe psychological problem and clearly puts into question, to leave the child simply with the parents.

I agree that the measures taken are obviously inappropriate and the public discussion of the case is quite controversely. Also, one should know, that the responsibility lies with police and authorities in Bavaria, where public security and order as well as strict obedience to law are held higher than at other places in Germany. --schifra 07:28, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Schifra that homeschooling doesn't, practically, exist in most European Countries. Going to school is a both a right and a duty of every citizen of school age. I'd say it is even written in the Constitution of some Countries, but don't have evidence of my claim other than faulty memory.
Private schools exist, but they have to demonstrate that the quality and scope of teaching are at least the same as public schools.
There is an issue and fierce debate in some Countries (for example Italy) about funding of private schools, that is, should the State pay private schools for the attendance of schoolchildren or should all cost be on the parents' shoulder?Leopeo 08:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

In most European countries attendance is compulsory, but parents may choose to send their children to a public school, a private school or have them thought at home by certified teachers.
Parents are not allowed to homeschool their children themselves unless they are certified teachers who can teach the required curriculum.

This is not unreasonable: a curriculum consists of geography, world history, elementary sciences, mathematics, and sometimes more advanced sciences and mathematics as well economics and arts, most parents are not qualified to teach these subjects.

I have seen a lot of home schooled children since coming to college (about 35) and they are all so horribly socially damaged it is disgusting. They have no friends, they don't know how to interact with their peers, and they are either practically failing because they didn't learn enough in homeschooling, or they are passing, but all they ever do is course work. I don't think it is right to take a child out of the school system because the child has social issues or you don't agree with what the school is teaching, because high school is not so much about learning, as it is a social interaction experience. Humans, by and far, are social creatures, and taking them out of a social environment seriously stunts their social development. With that being said, about 20 of the home schooled people that I know here are doing very well in their respective years. I just don't know at what cost does that academic success become worth it. --Elamdri 23:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Most homeschoolers that I'm familiar with have social interaction, just not as part of their schooling (and there's exceptions there too). But even if there are possible down sides to homeschooling, there's also downsides to going to a school, and being negatively influenced by the lowest common denominator students at that school. In other words, the homeschoolers (I'm generalising of course) don't learn to swear, take drugs, have pre-marital sex, etc., things which are so often learnt at school (from other students, I'm talking about), even to some extent including Christian schools. Philip J. Rayment 22:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I that's part of being a child. You're responsibility as a parent is to give you children the information needed to make decisions when faced with those things. Swearing, for starters, is a part of life. I swear like a sailor when I'm around my guy friends, but I don't swear in front of women and my family, because thats how I was raised. I don't take drugs because I was taught by my parents that drugs are bad, although I do socially drink alcohol. I don't agree with just having sex willy-nilly, but I have had sex with my girlfriend of a few years, and I don't see anything wrong with that. We might get married, but not at least for another 2 years. You can't coddle your kids from these things though, because as much as you want to shelter them, I just think it does more harm than good. What happens when you kids go off to college, cause you can't home school them through that.--Elamdri 23:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

What's part of being a child? Being exposed to negative influences? Yes, the responsibility is with the parent, which is precisely why many parents homeschool, because they see it as their responsibility to train their children, rather than leaving it to others. True, they will be exposed to negative influences later in life anyway, but training them at home doesn't prevent parents equipping them for that situation. They don't have to be thrown into the fire to be taught that the fire is dangerous. Philip J. Rayment 03:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm jumping in here late, but as a teacher of over 120 homeschooled teenagers I can say there are clear differences with public school kids, but most of the differences are in favor of the homeschoolers. For example, homeschoolers are much friendlier than public school kids. In fact, I've gotten to where I can usually tell whether someone is homeschooled or public-schooled just by watching their personality for five minutes. If you don't already know a public school kid, then it is unlikely that kid will befriend you in a short period of time. Too much of a gang mentality in public school and too many hangups. Not so for homeschooled teenagers.--Aschlafly 01:12, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno. I think I sorta subscribe to the mentality that part of rearing children is letting them fall and seeing if they'll pick themselves back up. Sorta the standing aside while the dumb kid sticks his finger in the electrical socket approach if you will. I mean, Andrew, I think its totally possible we have had just two separate instances with homeschooling. I personally know two people who got picked on in middle school, so their parents gave them all sorts of excuses not to go, and they started homeschooling, and they are so worse off for it. When I was in 12th grade and doing Calculus, one of the girls was doing 7th grade math, same age as me. I think that it is possible Andy that since you are professionally teaching your kids, that might have a more positive impact.--Elamdri 03:43, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I don't think you understand: you teach children at home because you're certified to teach certain subjects, this way of homeschooling is generally allowed in European countries, because that way children still get a full curriculum.

But I have to agree with Elamdri that homeschooling is not very good for social skills: yes, they may be polite, but can they stand up for themselves? Did they learn how to find a balance between work and pleasure by the time they go to college?
Are they way too gullible because they've never been deceived?
Have they learned to put themselves in someone else's shoes?
Have they learned to accept the various ideas and lifestyles of others?
Are they spoiled brats because they've never been rejected or disciplined for anti-social behaviour?
(Like a prince being brought up in a sheltered palace to protect him from negative influences, only to become a despot because he doesn't know his people.)

I'll be able to discuss this more later, but studies show that homeschoolers are academically more advanced, on average, than public school students. They are socially healthier also, in my experience. Of course there are departures from the mean in both systems. But the argument about socialization is a myth. Take a look at the list of homeschoolers. Think Abraham Lincoln could not "stand up for" himself???--Aschlafly 09:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Different times, different ways.
Lincoln was raised in an elitist environment in a time when everyone was homeschooled (by certified teachers) and the elite was polite up front (and backstabbed you instead of openly engaging you).
The only common people he was around much were servants, who knew they'd lose their job for talking back to their masters.

I wanna see those studies, and objective ones please, because I don't believe one bit about homeschoolers being more advanced, even though the American public school system is flawed.
I don't think many homeschoolers (homeschooled by their parents, not teachers) become scientists or engineers, the few that do probably tought themselves more than their parents ever could.

When comparing the performance of homeschoolers and public school students you have to take into account that the achievements of public school students vary considerably, as can be seen from the results of the PISA studies of the OECD. So, how and why do the top countries, like Finland and Kanada, do so much better than Germany or US? To me this dos not seem so much a question of homeschooling or not. --schifra 12:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Should an Encyclopedia be Prescriptive?

The front page article today reads "How to deal with terrorism". That certainly doesn't sound unbiased to me, and I'd expect unbiased material from an encyclopedia. By the same token, any mention of Israeli anti-terrorism in 1972 should also reference the Olympics, and the result of that terrorist action and attempted rescue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbarefoot(talk)

But this is not an encyclopedia, this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". This is certainly much more biased than, say, Wikipedia. But then it doesn't purport to be unbiased. Conservapedia aims to present conservative bias. It fails miserably, but that is just my biased opinion. Leopeo 08:20, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I went looking for some guidelines, and found the Conservapedia Commandments. #5 reads "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry". Surely that should extend to the front page, shouldn't it? Dbarefoot 08:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

That's not a personal opinion, that's, uhm, fact. Every conservative (*) knows that that is the only way to deal with terrorism, so it's a fact. Leopeo 10:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(*) with the word 'conservative' I mean 'Conservapedia conservative', not what most people think of 'conservative'. Leopeo 10:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

In the news

The link to the news article about wikipedia and conservapedia doesn't seem to work. Jrssr5 08:25, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

You're right, but I don't know what it should be, so I'll leave it for someone else to fix. Philip J. Rayment 08:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, if I read it correctly the plan of evacuating of 20 million australians was a hoax. Jrssr5 08:27, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was a hoax, but it was broadcast by Art Bell quite seriously, with the comment, "Will it take something like this? Like evacuating half a nation, before we wake up and realise that it is actually happening". Global warming hysteria has exaggerated the issue so much that disciples of it didn't recognise this hoax for what it really was. And it wasn't to evacuate all 20 million, but upward of 11 million of us. Philip J. Rayment 08:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

It seems that conservapedia is playing into the hoax by broadcasting it as a real plan on the main page. Very War of the Worldsish. Jrssr5 08:39, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

It wasn't intended that way, but I suppose it could be read that way. I'll reword it. Philip J. Rayment 08:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

3 things. 1) The article doesn’t say that this is a hoax—it doesn’t even have an official governmental denial. 2) We have here the opinion of a journalist reported as fact. 3) Art Bell is a well-known Conservative, shouldn’t this be identified as coming from a Conservative (since the editorial policy here seems to be to identify the political stance of the people involved in the headline).--Reginod 10:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The article states: "You might think the moral of this farce is not to trust even million-hit websites such as WorldNetDaily, which reported the story Bell read out so credulously, or the news site run by the New-Age nutter who actually dreamed up this hoax, a blogger posing as Russian scientist “Sorcha Faal”." (emphasis mine) Jrssr5 10:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

1) The linked article([9]) says that it was a hoax ("...the news site run by the New-Age nutter who actually dreamed up this hoax..."). Regarding the denial, I feel like asking "are you serious?", but perhaps you are too far removed from this to realise how ridiculous this is. I first heard about it on Tuesday morning (it's now 12:10 a.m. Thursday) on the radio here in Melbourne, where they replayed Art Bell's piece and thought that it was hilarious that someone would actually believe this. Apart from anything else, the Australian Government have been criticised as being global warming sceptics; they're hardly about to do something like this.

2) What bit(s) are you dismissing as "opinion"?

3) I posted it, and I'm an Aussie, and I knew nothing about Art Bell (and still don't, other than taking your word for it). If others here want to add that, that's their business, but that's why I didn't mention anything about his views.

I object to all the drawing of “morals” from the story—that’s all opinion—most of the descriptive language (which is clearly designed to belittle those who believe in Global Warming, indicating this is an opinion piece rather than news reporting), and the rhetorical questions (a device designed to advance opinion without providing any support for it). All of that indicates this is an op-ed piece and not a reporting of the facts (unless the standards are very different in Australia than they are here—which I’d be willing to believe if a native would support that).

As a P.S. on point three the paragraph I missed has it coming to Art Bell from the WroldNetDaily which is also a well known conservative source (I can’t figure out the politics of the original poster of the hoax just skimming her writings (though what I’m reading indicates a sincere, if insane, belief system rather than a hoax) –but I find her railing against both the Bush administration and the Hollywood elite—though the WorldNetDaily’s willingness to report her story as news suggests at least some conservative credentials). --Reginod 11:01, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The link to the Australian newspaper was to an opinion column, not a news item. That's why the main page refers to the author as a "commentator" rather than a journalist. Philip J. Rayment 11:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Reginod, you miss the point, perhaps intentionally so. It is fine to cite opinion when clearly labeled as such, as Philip does today. We've done that repeatedly on the front page and will continue to do so. For example, one day I ran a liberal falsehood about the Population Explosion.--Aschlafly 11:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you miss my point let me restate it more clearly. The whole article is opinion, only the part directly quoted is clearly labeled as such. The first sentence of the headline is presented as if it were news and not opinion. That is opinion is presented as fact. If the whole thing were clearly labeled as such I would have no problem with how it was presented.

I would, also, appreciate it if you would refrain from suggesting that I have inappropriate motives.--Reginod 12:10, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't have any idea what Bell's politics are, but wouldn't be surprised if they don't fit neatly into either 'liberal' or 'conservative' buckets. From what I've heard of his show, his show is about conspiracy theories and the paranormal. In other words, I wouldn't take him believing something as evidence of anything at all, other than that there are some pretty credulous people out there. --Jtl 12:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Bell is a conservative conspiracy theorist. There are actually two fairly well differentiated camps among conspiracy theorists, left and right. Conservative conspiracy theorists tend to be worried about the End Times and Armageddon, One World Government (especially the UN), plots to leave Americans without their guns, Communist Conspiracies, and anti-religious conspiracies. On the far-right there is also, often a concern about Jewish plots as well. Liberal conspiracy theorists tend to be worried about the American government taking away their liberties, plots to restrict use of marijuana, Bankers Conspiracies (and more generally conspiracies by large corporations), and Fascist Conspiracies. Both groups seem concerned about aliens, occult powers and groups (the Freemasons figure prominently in theories form all parts of the political spectrum), hidden history, cryptozoology, government suppression of technology (water powered cars, zero point energy, and the like), and supernatural beings. That’s a rough taxonomy, but it should serve as a guide—listen to Bell with that in mind and you’ll find he is very clearly a conservative conspiracy theorist (though not a dogmatic one).

The more important point, though, is that the main page is still reporting opinion as fact. If I say “Global warming hysteria reached new heights…” I’ve made a claim of fact, and at the moment that claim of fact is being supported by an op-ed piece. --Reginod 17:29, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Broken link

Conservapedia is in the news again. "One can read wikipedia's entry on conservapedia and conservapedia's entry on wikipedia to get a good idea of each site's perspective on the other."[11]

That link doesn't work.

(Personally, I'd say can the item because what Wikipedia and Conservapedia have to say about each other is a) not interesting, and b) does not represent the best thing that either project does. I think Conservapedia's attempt to define itself by reference to Wikipedia is a mental trap which would be better avoided). Dpbsmith 09:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that paper removed its link in a hurry. I've replaced it with an identical story in another paper. Thanks.

More generally, AP thought this was of interest, so I'm just relaying that to others. I agree that we should not define ourselves as anti-Wikipedia, and I don't think we do. But those who still think Wikipedia is unbiased might be educated to learn that AP itself has doubts.--Aschlafly 11:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it's going to get fixed ... i mentioned it earlier too. Jrssr5 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)